Posted on 10/04/2006 10:06:03 AM PDT by goldstategop
Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams is backing a Church of England report that claims viewing God in masculine terms can validate "overbearing and ultimately violent patterns of behavior" in intimate relationships and "contributes to domestic abuse," the London Daily Mail reports.
Archbishop Rowan Williams
The document, entitled "Responding to Domestic Abuse, Guidelines for Pastoral Responsibility," is a response to a motion passed by the church's General Synod in July 2004 for guidelines to assist dioceses in working with other agencies and "speak[ing] out against the evil of domestic violence."
The report encourages churches to provide pastoral counsel to victims of domestic abuse and to provide information about relevant agencies and support services to those in need.
"Domestic abuse in all its forms is contrary to the will of God and an affront to human dignity," reads the forward co-signed by Williams. "All need to play their part in preventing or halting it."
(Story continues below)
But it is not the church's focus on the problem of domestic abuse that is drawing attention – it's the report's assertion that traditional church teaching reinforces abuse - intentionally or unintentionally.
"Deficient" and "perverse," the document charges, is the belief in "self-denial," which can be used to urge a victim to forgive without taking action to end the abuse.
"I think of the experience, not least of some victims themselves who can be locked into a belief that they deserve the punishment that they receive and they link that with the theology that they hear in church where Christ is victim," said the Rt. Rev. Graham James, Bishop of Norwich. "... maybe even that they think their suffering has redemptive quality to it which justifies it in some way."
The document points to "misguided" or distorted conceptions of God derived from the Bible and the Christian tradition that portrays divine power in "unhealthy and oppressive" ways. Among them are attributing violent actions and attitudes to God, primarily from the Old Testament – scripture that requires "careful" interpretation, the report warns.
Viewing man's relationship with God in terms of domination and submission and "uncritical use of masculine imagery," the report says, can validate "overbearing and ultimately violent patterns of behavior" responsible for domestic abuse.
This is not the first time the archbishop of Canterbury has raised eyebrows. In 2004, Williams publicly backed a new version of the Bible that promotes fornication and flatly contradicts traditional core Christian beliefs on sex and morality.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
Yawn.
This rhetoric was standard faire when I was in Seminary from 1984 - 1988. It is a product of 1970's feminism. It is dogma among seminarians of liberal denominations, as well as its grads in the past 20 years, perhaps the only dogma in places there the Apostle's Creed is a quaint historical artifact.
Anyone who examines the question clearly sees God is a She. If God was a he, man would have been designed with enough blood to operate his brain, and his wallywally, and both at the same time. God is a She with a sense of humor.
It soon won't make a different to the Church of England when they acknowledge that Allah is a male.
What else can they do to destroy themselves?
Wow. You just can't make this stuff up.
G-d does not have a gender. If you read closely He created Adam (both male and Female) in his image. He has elements of both genders. It wasn't until later than He took part of Adam's side and formed a Woman (marriage is a joining of both Adam and Eve, Male and Female, into the image of G-d) We often try to create G-d in our image.
"Ge 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them."
At least we know that men looking at men as women doesn't work.
It is correct to say God made man and woman in HIS image, as persons. Of course we are not made identical to God because God is Spirit, God is Three Persons in one, God is eternal and omniscient and self-sustaining and all powerful. So when Scripture says God made us in His image, it must take these facts into consideration and we have to understand what that means. It means that we are made in His image as people, with desires, emotions, intelligence, are built for relationships with others, to be creative, to give thanks to God, and to be in fellowship with God, our Creator.
I think it is a mistake to say read "God made man and woman in His image" and come to conclusion that God cannot be male because He created two human genders. God is perfect and encompasses ALL person traits pefectly and to the fullest. Many types of references to God refer to Him as 'Father'. After all, Jesus was the Son, the 2nd person of the Trinity, and this 'Son of God' refers to 'His Father' in Heaven and tells us about 'the Father'. We pray to Our Heavenly Father.
It certainly is true that God is larger than the issue of male or female. God made man and woman persons, but incomplete persons, in the sense that man and woman need each other to be complete. I believe this is why gender is important for us human beings, but from God's perspective, what gender you are makes you no more or less of a God-created person - all people are made in the image of God, as people.
Contrast incomplete human persons with God Himself, who is a perfect PERSON, albeit in Spirit. Does this mean that God is sexless? Why would we come to the conlclusion that 'God the Father' has no gender? Just because God has no need for gender, does that mean that God cannot be what humans would call 'a man'? The only angels we know by name are described as men (Michael, Gabriel), yet we know from Scripture the heavenly angels do not have sex. When it has been recorded when angels appear in human form, they appeared as men. But angels, except from these appearances, are Spirit beings, yet they appear to have gender, even though they do not need it for procreation.
It begs the question that if God makes His creation to have gender, why would God Himself refer to Himself as Father if He didn't want to convey a certain quality about Himself?
We understand persons to have a quality of gender as part of what it means to be a person. Can God refer to Himself as 'Father' and not be saying something about Himself? The question really is, why could not God, being a complete, perfect person, be the gender He refers to Himself in? As a perfect person, he would possess all the traits of a perfect man and perfect woman, if you want to think about it that way.
If God, who cannot lie, refers to Himself in terms of Father, Son, etc. if He really is not so, is this not deception on the part of God to us human beings in reference to who He says He is? If God was Mother God, would that have not been the way He would have taught us to pray to Him?
Some would say that when God refers to Himself as Father, He is not talking about gender but the quality of Father. If that is true it is never directly stated as that what God is referring to. You have to read every passage where God refers to Himself as Father with this in mind, but doing so makes it sound ridiculous. Take the Lord's Prayer:
Our Father (not actually having to do with gender, but having the masculine qualities of a perfect Father), who art in Heaven....
The same thing if 'Father' has nothing to do with the personal quality of God, but rather God is just using it as a title:
Our Father (again, not actually to do with gender, but in title only), who art in Heaven....
The fact is, God could have revealed Himself any way He wanted to to us. He could have revealed Himself as female if He so wanted to.
After Christ's birth, God the Son was forever different as He had two natures, both perfect, divine Spirit and sinless human. This part of the Godhead has a physical quality to it and will have it forever.
I think people want to get hung up on this because they cannot relate to God as male because something in their lives that make them hate or distrust human men. If you go by that standard, we can't have ANY gods, male or female, as none of us are perfect. We are all are raised by, bossed around by, and taught by imperfect people who may be unfair, nasty, and abusive to us.
The description of the "Holy Trinity" is going to be reworked?
But the Son does.
Absolutely-He and his Father are one. I personally believe that when Moses got the Torah, it was given to him by Jesus (remember, no man can look at G-d's face and live.) So he was seeing G-d's face as a reflection in Jesus' face.
Absolutely-He and his Father are one. I personally believe that when Moses got the Torah, it was given to him by Jesus (remember, no man can look at G-d's face and live.) So he was seeing G-d's face as a reflection in Jesus' face.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.